Question Matting B & W Photos by Newbie

Create a Post
2

2featheryournest

True Grumbler
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Posts
79
Loc
Nashville TN
As a newbie I have not (until now) had a job framing B & W photographs. I now have a request to frame a large number of valuable, new family photographs for a feature wall. Do I want to use the "whitest white" (what do you recommend?) for the mat? Also, museum glass will be used, which I also have not had the opportunity to work with until now. I understand it is diffcult to work with. Can you give me a heads up on what to expect before I ruin some of this valuable glass?
Thanks SO much!
K
 
Very few black and white photos are printed on stark white paper and an off white, with its tone chosen to match the lights in the photo, usually works better than bright white.



Hugh
 
preservator good guide line

another is or just another way to say it is;
Consider not using a whiter white than is in the actual photo.
 
There are a couple of really good articles in the PFM about mounting/framing B&W photos. I believe the November or December PFM had a really good article about different ways to float B&W photos. The one factor that most conservators & other framers have is that if it is a photo with some type of value, monetary or sentimental, that a copy should be made and the copy should be the one framed. I've pretty much adapted that policy in my shop and will require a release of liablity if the original is to be framed. All of the B&W photos seem to have a different color tint depending upon age - I would look at that color tint to decide what color of mat I would use.
As far as museum glass goes - it is no harder to work with that the other glass except that it scratches easier if you are not careful. I have a piece of release paper ATGed to the aluminium plate of the wall cutter so that I don't scratch the glass when installing it in the cutter. I also wear cotton gloves when I handle any type of glass so that I don't leave finger prints - this is especially true with MG. About 55% of my glazing sales is MG and I found that taking a little extra time will warrant that I don't have to scrap any because of scratches.
 
Generally speaking, a bright white mat will tend to make the whites in the photo appear dingy. Likewise, a pure black mat will tend to make the blacks in the photo appear muddy.

With all respect for Joe, I disagree about framing a copy rather than an original. A well exposed, developed and fixed Black and White photo has a richness and depth that cannot be reproduced. Also, a well exposed, developed and fixed Black and White photo will last at least a century without degrading as long as proper framing techniques are observed.
 
I agree totally with Bill Henry and he knows much more than me - you cannot reproduce (copy) a B & W that will look as good as the original and that the original will last a long time if framed correctly...unless...no matter how correctly you frame it, the customer hangs it in direct sunlight, it will fade, copy or not, UV glass or not. I try to explain to my customers that just because there is a UV block on glass the glass isn't bullet proof and in time the framed photo/print will fade if hung in direct sunlight; and in my experience it doesn't take that long. That is the reason I try to frame a copy instead of the original. The majority of my customers are happy to get the copy, though a few will use the original. That is their choice and where they hang it is their choice, I just like to protect my interest in the project by getting the release.
 
I also use gloves with MG and I cut it right before it is ready to go onto the art. I do not wash the side of the glass that faces the art.

Are the photos glossy? I tend not to use MG with glossy photos.
 
As an amateur photographer I'm more curious how these family photos can be “new” and “valuable”? Either there is something exotic going on or the photographer is a marketing genius. I guess thats another subject. Still if they are valuable and your apprehensive about mat color and how to handle MG wouldn't turning the job away be a safer route?

Bill, if these photos are “new” are these copies or originals? I'm also curious what current printing process can't be re-duplicated with the identical brilliance? I guess that may depend on printing process. How do you know it would last a century? I just don't understand these huge sweeping claims. No matter they are also off topic.

Joe I mostly agree with your assessment except you say that it will fade if hung in “direct” sunlight. I'd adjust that to say that it will fade no matter where it is hung and no matter what type of glass is used. It's not a popular stance for a framer but it's an accurate one.

Mats. I also don't prefer “bright white” on my photos. However for consistency and because some photography competitions require it, I frame all my photos in the gallery with bright white. All in all it doesn't bother me but sometimes a softer mat may help.

I can't help with the MG.
 
I have a bit of a problem with the "New and Valuable"; maybe new and expensive suits better.

First you need to find out what kind of B&W photos you are handling. The kind of processing (or printing) and the nature of the paper, emulsion, and/or inks used. Also, if traditional B&W on fiber paper, was there any toner used in the processing?

Find out if UV is going to be an issue. Museum glass is sexy, but it isn't the prefect UV protection. If you score it on the side indicated it cuts just like any other single strength glass. I use Sprayway glass cleaner* for all my glass, and don't have any particular problems cleaning Museum glass. A bit more care in handling is necessary because the coatings can scratch.

*A totally uncompensated endorsement.
 
Museum glass can be difficult to work with, but if you're careful it's not hard to make a bit more money with it. Use gloves! In the past we've used plastic covered gloves from Larson Juhl (they seem to have discontinued this product though). Cotton gloves work very nicely, but since they can warm your hands up, you might find that you're leaving sweaty imprints on the glass through the gloves. We just picked up a pair of gloves at a hardware store that have a rubberized palm and finger tips and they work great - and a $6 this kind of investment can really save you time.

Really, you want to keep the MG as clean as possible the entire time that you're working with it. A small smudge can be a pain to clean up and you may find yourself making more and more smudges trying to clean it up.

If and when you do get a smudge on the glass, try breathing on it like you would with a pair of glasses, use a lint free cloth a wipe it in small circles - that should take care of any odd marks easily. Don't forget that a lot of the small smudges that you notice on the glass when it is laying flat are completely invisible when you look at it vertically - if you go too crazy with smudges you might get yourself in a vicious circle!

As for b/w photos, there's never a perfect color mat since different photos have different degrees of whiteness in them - you should be able to find an appropriate white though.

Good luck!
 
2featheryournest said:
... Also, museum glass will be used...I understand it is diffcult to work with. Can you give me a heads up on what to expect before I ruin some of this valuable glass?
Click to expand...

Museum Glass is not difficult to work with, but those of us who routinely use it may be a bit more careful about our glass handling and cutting procedures. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Wear clean, soft cloth gloves when handling and cutting optically coated glass or acrylic. We use the gloves available free from Tru-Vue. Order them via the web site, where you can also order your free Museum Glass display on the same page.

2. When cutting Museum Glass, take the leaf of brown Kraft interleaving paper out of the box with the lite of glass, and use it as a slip sheet to prevent accidental scratches from the wall cutter or cutting-table surface. As with Conservation Clear, note the edge-writing and score the side that is not UV-coated.

3. When cutting Museum Optium Acrylic, leave the masking on until the last moment before fitting. Note that static charge is not an issue with optically coated acrylic; its static charge is less than ordinary glass. Keep your acrylic cutter sharp and score about halfway through the sheet, then snap it apart on the score line, the same as usual for cutting any acrylic sheet.

4. Cut the glass or acrylic last, after all other framing materials are prepared, just before fitting. Take it directly from the wall cutter or cutting table and drop it into the frame. This eliminates unnecessary handling that could result in scratches, smudges or fingerprints.

5. Wrap leftover pieces of Museum Glass in the brown Kraft interleaving paper from the glass box. Mark the size on each piece and store them vertically for future use.

6. Careful handling usually eliminates the need to clean. But if you need to clean optically coated glazing at all, use a clean cotton or microfiber cloth and a non-ammonia liquid such as Tru-Vue Premium Clean or Sparkle, and not a foaming or aerosol cleaner such as Sprayway. Apply a small amount of liquid to the cloth, rub it on the soiled surface, and buff until the swirls are gone.

7. If you notice tiny, round spots on the glazing, they often come from droplets of spittle during conversation, or maybe a sneeze. They may be easily removed.
 
wpfay said:
... Museum glass is sexy, but it isn't the prefect UV protection...
Click to expand...

It is true that no glazing offers perfect protection against light damage. All light causes irreversible damage to framed images, determined by the intensity of the light and the time of exposure. The only perfect protection against light damage is to keep the image in the dark.

That said, Museum Glass offers the best protection available in any glazing against light damage, the same protective quality as Conservation Clear. Both products have the same Tru-Guard coating, which blocks about 99% of UV light from 300 nm to 380 nm.
 
Jay H said:
. How do you know it would last a century? I just don't understand these huge sweeping claims. No matter they are also off topic.
Click to expand...

Jay,

The photographs of Steichen, Stieglitz, and O’Keefe were done in the early 1900s – Muybridge and Brady even earlier. According to preservationists and museum curators those images are holding up extraordinarily well. Silver is an extremely stabile compound, and, if during the fixing and washing process, all of the halide salts are removed, a black and white photograph will outlast us all.

I, too, used to have a darkroom, and despite my going digital, I still love the quality of a good b&w image. It may be just my bias and perspective, but I have yet to see a truly good digital black and white image. But, then again, I don’t have access to really high end printers.
 
I bet the reference to "VALUABLE" photos only means that the photographer charges a very large fee for the photos. If this is the case one would not be able to duplicate these without purchasing a second set of prints directly from the photographer because of copyright issues. The fact that they were referred to as portraits would be a good indication of that.

Just my take on the whole situation.
 
Bill Henry- said:
Jay,

The photographs of Steichen, Stieglitz, and O’Keefe were done in the early 1900s – Muybridge and Brady even earlier. According to preservationists and museum curators those images are holding up extraordinarily well. Silver is an extremely stabile compound
Click to expand...

And so any modern print called "black and white" is as stable?
 
I use the term "valuable" because they mean so much to the owner. They were also done by a nationally renown photographer and worth it or not, he charged a ton to do the collection.
Thanks for your input!
K
 
Jay H said:
And so any modern print called "black and white" is as stable?
Click to expand...

If the “black and white” is a true photographic print using standard photographic papers and chemicals, then, yes, I believe it will be as stable as the “antique” photos. That is, assuming, that the darkroom process includes proper fixing and thorough washing – and not the mass processed stuff that photofinishers often do.

I cannot speak for (or guess as to) modern ink jet papers, for example, but from what I have read, probably not.
 
Bill Henry- said:
I cannot speak for (or guess as to) modern ink jet papers, for example, but from what I have read, probably not.
Click to expand...

Depends on the ink used for wide format printers. I have had several pieces exposed to very bright sunlight in the front window with regular glass and no glass just to watch for signs of deterioration. 13 months and no changes when printed with the Epson Ultra Chrome K3 inks.
 
I know the photos you're talking about Bill. I have my granddad's photos from WWII. He was in Africa, Pearl Harbor and Adak Alaska. I'm honored to have these photos. I'm glad they used the process they did because these are not stored very well but defy age. I'm not versed enough in film photography to know what process exactly produced these. I am sure it's not widely in use today.

The prints you describe as "a true photographic print using standard photographic papers and chemicals" have become complete junk. When C-41 processing took over, photo quality took a hard turn for the worse. It's still how almost all “true photographic prints” are made and they are junk. I believe that any modern print with archival inks are infinitely more stable than most of the prints you describe.

But its all relative. I only objected with the idea that because its a photo and its black and white that its very stable and will last as well as those processed dozens of years ago. Quite the opposite I believe they are much less stable than their antique cousins. I still prefer the tonal range of traditionally processed b/w photos. After 5 or so years, the digital copy my look much better? Also digital is on the cusp of mastering the quality of the good ol days.
 
The last time I looked Kodak paper was rated with a 15 year lifespan and Fuji was given 17 years. Epson Enhanced Matte which is my cheapest paper was rated at 47 years. The rag papers are rated at 100 years.

The print was considered no longer viable after 10% degredation in quality.
 
as much as i hate to admit it, the inks from our epson 9600 (ultrachromes) seem to outlast the paper :)

We print signs for our windows on it all the time, when it was time to take one down that had been up for almost a year, the colors were still perfect, but the paper was deteriorating from being up against the window.
 
PhotoKris said:
as much as i hate to admit it, the inks from our epson 9600 (ultrachromes) seem to outlast the paper :)

We print signs for our windows on it all the time, when it was time to take one down that had been up for almost a year, the colors were still perfect, but the paper was deteriorating from being up against the window.
Click to expand...

Try the Epson Synthetic Adhesive Paper. It is an outdour repositionable sticker which states to have limited life without lamination. I have had one out for 6 months with no change whatsoever. You can even stick this stuff on the side of a brick building for several months.

I have laminnated it and used it for stickers on the van instead of magnets.
 
ill have to look into that. right now we have signs on the inside of our windows and banners outside hanging off the awning. The colors on the banners outlast the wire i use to hang them (or the banner material itself, whichever gets killed by the wind first :)
 
Create a Post
Back
Top